Big Kahunas

In article SHeAb.23487$ZE1.11162@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

Boosted the moral of 600 troops of how many troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq?
Thousands. You're argument is really bringing home the fact that it was
a political stunt. If he was sincere and meant it to be a morale booster
he would have involved many, many more troops.

You are assuming that the other troops wouldn't
see any value to his visit. While some were probably
whining that they weren't visited or had extra duty because
of the visit, I'm convinced that most of the troops were pleased
(including the troops serving in other locations around the world).

But be honest it's way
too dangerous over there for him to do that. In fact once the wheels of
AF1 left Iraq those troops were reminded of just how dangerous a place
it is there.

A significant number of the military people I work with have
been deployed over there or are going to be deployed. Trust me,
they know it's a dangerous place - a POTUS visit wouldn't change that.
They don't need to be "reminded."

--
Bob Noel

In article rZeAb.23773$ZE1.10604@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
take action and more whining when the US does.

So are you saying you're happy when they take action and happy when
they don't?

No. I didn't say that.

--
Bob Noel

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:10:14 -0500, G.R. Patterson III wrote:



Martin Hotze wrote:

hm. I am from Europe. Mainland Europe (there is only mainland Europe *bg*).
I am living in mailand Europe, in a neutral country, and we have the Euro as our
currency. Now this explanation doesn't leave very much room for choices :-))

Fine, but in the mid-1700s, Europe was a hodge-podge of duchies, kingdoms, and
God knows what else. As I recall, you are living in Austria.

yes. (and to your earlier post you haven't even mentioned the Habsburg
monarchy, owning most of Europe then, and also parts of Mexico).

That area, and the
area north of there now known as Bavaria provided most of the troops that
England sent over here during our revolution and many of the troops used later
in the Napoleonic wars. My ancestors called them "Hessians" because many of them
were from that area.


*muahahahahahhaahahha*

you're a really funny person.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:24:20 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

Are you contending that we
are looting Iraq, raping the women, and bringing our soldiers home loaded
with Iraqi TVs (as Iraq did to Kuwait)? If not, what do you think we are
doing there?

naaahhh. no TVs.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe...acts_4-14.html
(for example)

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:24:20 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

They are furious that we have not begun looting Iraqi oil fields.

Well, many people are expecting exactly this to happen every day now.
But not done by Bush but by Americans. It is not a good impression that
grew in many heads all over the world. It might be wrong, but the
impression is here.

(...)
Now, I think it is extremely hateful, contemptuous, and arrogant to wish
that our own soldiers who are faithfully serving our country will meet
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
they do?

disaster just to serve

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

Dam dead nerves in fingers ( Little or no sense of feel.

I of course mean't to say "didn't kill someone" vs the way it came out
as "did kill someone".

Big John


On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:50:53 -0600, Big John
wrote:

Montblack

Guess I missused the term.

I had planned on gracefully (ungracefully) backing out of
participation in the thresd and hoping that some the views expressed
did kill someone who believed and acted on them.

Thanks for your rational comment.

Big John

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:41:29 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote:

("R. Hubbell" wrote)
Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.


I don't have a horse, a donkey, or an elephant in this fight but......

It's my observation that a person will be labeled intolerant, unless they
(whole-heartedly) swallow whatever "alternative" viewpoints the left is
sponsoring.

Big John, please consider *unplonking* David ...for the holidays g

You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections a
chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time they
(and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,
even though it was just a diversion.

I'll admit, I can't stand the guy. He's as phony as a three dollar bill. But
war was not a last resort for him. It was a given. If he could admit that,
I'd have at least a little respect for him. If he could say, in light of the
lack of WMD with total access, in light of the absence of any connection to
9/11, that maybe he should have waited instead of rushing to war, I would
have an easier time supporting this war. But he can't-or rather, won't.
Neither can you. He just keeps changing the reason, and you just keep
following along like sheep. And even if he did, that doesn't change the fact
the this war was to divert attention from his failure in Afghanistan. Now
he's got 2 major failures and you can't admit that, even in hindsight. Not
even a little.And none of what you say about what I'm supposedly furious
about is even close to the truth. It just further demonstrates your refusal,
or inability, to deal with reality.

I used to be an independent. Now I see how truly ugly the republicans are.
In all these discussions, almost without exception, the Bush lovers-almost
all republicans-are the first to get derisive and start throwing epithets. I
guess that's what you have to do when the facts overwhelm your position. The
"Bush-haters" as you call us, seem to be able to discuss differences,
probably because we have reality on our side.

As for the money comment, it seems also, that the more money one has, the
more in favor of Bush one is. I wonder why?

mike regish

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:nq8Ab.311733$ao4.1062502@attbi_s51...
| You are without a doubt the most contemptuous, hateful and outright
arrogant
| person I've yet run into, and there are some doozies in the pro-bush
tribe.
| Get off your high horse and get in touch with reality at some point in
your
| miserable life.
|

I am not sure what you are saying -- honestly. Are you contending that we
are looting Iraq, raping the women, and bringing our soldiers home loaded
with Iraqi TVs (as Iraq did to Kuwait)? If not, what do you think we are
doing there?

You have not been following this news group for very long if you think I
am
an enthusiastic supporter of Bush. However, when he is right he deserves
credit for it.

Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and outright
arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the thought that the man
could possibly do anything right. They are absolutely foaming at the mouth
over it. They are furious that we have not begun looting Iraqi oil fields.
They are absolutely incensed that our soldiers are doing everything
possible
to not appear to be an occupying force -- even endangering their own lives
to do it. The anti-Bush crowd is livid that not only are we not looting
the
country, but we have no intention of allowing France, Germany, or Russia
to
loot the country, either. And the thing that gets them the most -- Bush
appears to actually be sincere about his reasons for invading Iraq and he
appears determined to make good on his promises there.

Now, I think it is extremely hateful, contemptuous, and arrogant to wish
that our own soldiers who are faithfully serving our country will meet
disaster just to serve the anti-Bush crowd's political agenda and give
Bush
a black eye.

| I don't plonk anybody, but that may just change. I'm sure that will
break
| your heart.

If the truth hurts, you should probably plonk me. In any event, I have the
same opinion of you that you have of me. In fact, my opinion of you is
even
lower. However, I will not plonk you. I don't feel it necessary to only
read
posts from people who agree with me. However, I understand your need to
avoid opinions dissenting from your own point of view, so don't be ashamed
if you have such a weak character.

|
| I'll bet you make a lot of money.
|

How much money I make is none of your business. However, I am retired and
devote my time to flight instructing, so I arguably make no money at all.
:-)

"C J Campbell" wrote:
Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and
outright arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the
thought that the man could possibly do anything right. They
are absolutely foaming at the mouth over it.

One is reminded of exactly the same phenomenon during the Clinton
administration.

I have made it plain in these newsgroups that I am disappointed in
Bush's presidency, particularly his decision to invade Iraq, which I
believe is a strategic blunder in the war on terrorism. Nevertheless,
the shrieking chorus of Bush haters disturbs me. It reveals the power of
hateful propaganda, both left- and right-wing, in America nowadays.
People aren't thinking; they are allowing themselves to be led.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections
a
chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time
they
(and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,

???

Where would YOU have drawn the line, Mike? Ten years? 12? 15?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have preferred
to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to war.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fSlAb.442217$Tr4.1229658@attbi_s03...
You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the
inspections
a
chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time
they
(and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,

???

Where would YOU have drawn the line, Mike? Ten years? 12? 15?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"